From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Oct 23 22:36:34 2002
Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5A31959E6
for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186])
by plaidworks.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9O5aUhh007264;
Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:36:29 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Subject: The Life Cycle of Mailing Lists.
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: List list ,
mailman-developers@python.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <8BD1A59E-E712-11D6-B94D-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546)
X-Archive-Number: 200210/1
X-Sequence-Number: 896
a friend passed this to me today. I thought some of you might find it
interesting.....
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 09:19:18 2002
Received: from sheffield.cnchost.com (sheffield.concentric.net [207.155.252.12])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF99F195A73
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (adsl-208-201-244-240.sonic.net [208.201.244.240])
by sheffield.cnchost.com
id MAA11501; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:19:16 -0400 (EDT)
[ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14]
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025091131.04809420@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:17:48 -0700
To: "list-managers"
From: JC Dill
Subject: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's blacklist/blocklist
entry
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Archive-Number: 200210/2
X-Sequence-Number: 897
I just received the following bounce/error message from AOL:
>from: Mail Delivery Subsystem
>Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:23:25 EDT
>To:
>Subject: Mail Delivery Problem
>
>Your mail to the following recipients could not be delivered because they
>are not accepting mail from xxxxxxx@yahoo.com:
> userxxxxxx
userxxxxxx@aol.com and xxxxxxx@yahoo.com are both subscribed to this
list. AOL gives users the ability to block email from specified addresses
(blacklist/blocklist).
Is it correct for AOL to send an error message like this to the list-owner
address when the sender is on the recipient's blocklist? I can see this
developing into a real problem if you get a bunch of people who decide to
killfile someone they don't like and the list manager gets notices from
each one, each time a post is blocked.
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 09:26:18 2002
Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0B0195A51
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186])
by plaidworks.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9PGPRhh004706;
Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:25:25 -0700
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's blacklist/blocklist entry
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546)
Cc: "list-managers"
To: JC Dill
From: Chuq Von Rospach
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025091131.04809420@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
Message-Id: <5E2C73F0-E836-11D6-B383-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546)
X-Archive-Number: 200210/3
X-Sequence-Number: 898
they've done that for a while, I believe. I treat them as bounces. If
they only block SOME people on the list, only SOME messages bounce, but
the effect is the same. If they complain, I explain. It ususally gets
the point across.
On Friday, October 25, 2002, at 09:17 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> I just received the following bounce/error message from AOL:
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
The Cliff's Notes Cliff's Notes on Hamlet:
And they all died happily ever after
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 09:35:08 2002
Received: from aloha.webkahuna.com (aloha.webkahuna.com [207.26.54.245])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0EEF195A51
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from janet.dm.net (aux-209-217-59-63.oklahoma.net [209.217.59.63])
by aloha.webkahuna.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g9PGYi625680;
Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:34:45 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.0.20021025113232.0157f390@localhost>
X-Sender: janet@mail.dm.net@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:34:43 -0500
To: JC Dill ,
"list-managers"
From: Janet Detter Margul
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025091131.04809420@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Archive-Number: 200210/4
X-Sequence-Number: 899
At 09:17 AM 10/25/2002 -0700, JC Dill wrote:
>Is it correct for AOL to send an error message like this to the list-owner
>address when the sender is on the recipient's blocklist? I can see this
>developing into a real problem if you get a bunch of people who decide to
>killfile someone they don't like and the list manager gets notices from
>each one, each time a post is blocked.
They do it to us all the time. My response is to set the blocker to nomail
and tell (usually) her that she's causing us to get failed mail notices and
so she's been set to nomail until she fixes the situation. I usually
refrain from saying that's what you've got a delete key for, at least the
first time.
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 09:49:21 2002
Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1C4195A51
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 24-205-154-98.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([24.205.154.98] helo=lehel.goldmark.private)
by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 1857e3-0007kr-00; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:49:11 -0700
Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51])
by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
id 1857e2-0003R3-00; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:49:10 -0700
Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost)
by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10)
id H4JQPY-0000SA-00; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:49:10 -0700
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeffrey Goldberg
X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private
Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg
To: JC Dill
Cc: list-managers
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's blacklist/blocklist
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025091131.04809420@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
Message-ID:
References: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025091131.04809420@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/5
X-Sequence-Number: 900
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, JC Dill wrote:
> Is it correct for AOL to send an error message like this to the list-owner
> address when the sender is on the recipient's blocklist?
Yes. That is the only reasonable option for AoL.
> I can see this developing into a real problem if you get a bunch of
> people who decide to killfile someone they don't like and the list
> manager gets notices from each one, each time a post is blocked.
Yes, it is a problem. I advise and then remove list members who do this.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 10:52:09 2002
Received: from warspite.cnchost.com (warspite.concentric.net [207.155.248.9])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB11B195B2C
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (adsl-208-201-244-240.sonic.net [208.201.244.240])
by warspite.cnchost.com
id NAA14649; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:52:07 -0400 (EDT)
[ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14]
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025100629.04589640@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:47:49 -0700
To: list-managers
From: JC Dill
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To:
References: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025091131.04809420@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
<5.0.0.25.2.20021025091131.04809420@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Archive-Number: 200210/6
X-Sequence-Number: 901
On 09:49 AM 10/25/02, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, JC Dill wrote:
>
>> Is it correct for AOL to send an error message like this to the list-owner
>> address when the sender is on the recipient's blocklist?
>
>Yes. That is the only reasonable option for AoL.
>
>> I can see this developing into a real problem if you get a bunch of
>> people who decide to killfile someone they don't like and the list
>> manager gets notices from each one, each time a post is blocked.
>
>Yes, it is a problem. I advise and then remove list members who do this.
Sigh. The problem is that the AOL subscriber is a good member on this list
so I don't want to do that.
Does anyone know if AOL allows whitelisting AND blacklisting, and if the
whitelist takes precedence? IOW, if she whitelists the list address, will
it accept list email while bouncing private email from the same sender?
Thanks!
jc
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 11:03:26 2002
Received: from c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com (c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com [66.229.137.17])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD16195A51
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Spooler by c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com (Mercury/32 v3.32) ID MO000019;
25 Oct 02 11:03:22 -0700
Received: from spooler by bdsm-events.com (Mercury/32 v3.32); 25 Oct 02 11:03:02 -0700
Received: from tom (66.229.137.17) by c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com (Mercury/32 v3.32) ID MG000018;
25 Oct 02 11:03:00 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20021025110258.009c4500@xmail.emediavillage.com>
X-Sender: tom@xmail.emediavillage.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:02:58 -0700
To: "list-managers"
From: Tom Keyser
Subject: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's blacklist/blocklist
entry
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Archive-Number: 200210/7
X-Sequence-Number: 902
Many AOL users dont understand the impact of the configuration changes they may to thier account.
Many user block all mail from outside the aol system due to aol being spam hell. all you can do is try to write to them from another email address and ask them if they know that they are blocking the emails that they are expecting to see.
>I just received the following bounce/error message from AOL:
>
> >from: Mail Delivery Subsystem
> >Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:23:25 EDT
> >To:
> >Subject: Mail Delivery Problem
> >
> >Your mail to the following recipients could not be delivered because they
> >are not accepting mail from xxxxxxx@yahoo.com:
> > userxxxxxx
>
>
>userxxxxxx@aol.com and xxxxxxx@yahoo.com are both subscribed to this
>list. AOL gives users the ability to block email from specified addresses
>(blacklist/blocklist).
>
>Is it correct for AOL to send an error message like this to the list-owner
>address when the sender is on the recipient's blocklist? I can see this
>developing into a real problem if you get a bunch of people who decide to
>killfile someone they don't like and the list manager gets notices from
>each one, each time a post is blocked.
>
>
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 11:03:28 2002
Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F45195B2C
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225])
by mail-out2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9PI3MI06479
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com
(Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ;
Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:03:21 -0700
Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0601f-dhcp150.apple.com [17.216.34.150])
by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g9PI3Ki25646;
Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:03:20 -0700
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546)
Cc: list-managers
To: JC Dill
From: Chuq Von Rospach
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025100629.04589640@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
Message-Id: <0BA9E0F6-E844-11D6-B383-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546)
X-Archive-Number: 200210/8
X-Sequence-Number: 903
On Friday, October 25, 2002, at 10:47 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> Sigh. The problem is that the AOL subscriber is a good member on this
> list so I don't want to do that.
>
of course.
> Does anyone know if AOL allows whitelisting AND blacklisting, and if
> the whitelist takes precedence? IOW, if she whitelists the list
> address, will it accept list email while bouncing private email from
> the same sender?
>
>
nope. that's not an option. If you block an address, you block an
address.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
No! No! Dead girl, OFF the table! -- Shrek
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 11:37:54 2002
Received: from c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com (c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com [66.229.137.17])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12FF195F83
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Spooler by c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com (Mercury/32 v3.32) ID MO00001D;
25 Oct 02 11:37:53 -0700
Received: from spooler by bdsm-events.com (Mercury/32 v3.32); 25 Oct 02 11:37:42 -0700
Received: from tom (66.229.137.17) by c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com (Mercury/32 v3.32) ID MG00001C;
25 Oct 02 11:37:39 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20021025113737.009c7690@xmail.emediavillage.com>
X-Sender: tom@xmail.emediavillage.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:37:37 -0700
To: list-managers
From: Tom Keyser
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To: <0BA9E0F6-E844-11D6-B383-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com>
References: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025100629.04589640@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Archive-Number: 200210/9
X-Sequence-Number: 904
>> Does anyone know if AOL allows whitelisting AND blacklisting, and if
>> the whitelist takes precedence? IOW, if she whitelists the list
>> address, will it accept list email while bouncing private email from
>> the same sender?
On AOL you can
block ALL, by domain, or by address
accept ONLY, by domain, or by address
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 12:44:38 2002
Received: from pat.uio.no (pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AF4195A73
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stjorn.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.65.55])
by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7)
id 185ANm-0000T5-00; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:44:34 +0200
Received: from localhost (thomas@localhost) by stjorn.ifi.uio.no ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:44:33 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:44:33 +0200 (MEST)
From: Thomas Gramstad
Reply-To: Thomas Gramstad
To: Jeffrey Goldberg
Cc: list-managers
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's blacklist/blocklist
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
X-Contact-Me-Info: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/
X-My-Lists: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/lists/
X-Best-Listserver: Majordomo 2 - http://csf.colorado.edu/mj/
X-Post-Objectivism: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/articles.html
X-Amazons-Ring: http://H.webring.com/hub?ring=amazonsinternati
X-Grrl: I love Janice
X-For-Media: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/pix/
X-Bli-Med-I-EFN: http://www.efn.no/
X-Boktips: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/lister/amasoner-bok.html
X-ena: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/lister/xena.html
X-en-Buddhism: Clap one hand now!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/10
X-Sequence-Number: 905
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, JC Dill wrote:
>> Is it correct for AOL to send an error message like this to the
>> list-owner address when the sender is on the recipient's
>> blocklist?
> Yes. That is the only reasonable option for AoL.
Why? Why does the list-owner have to know who's blocking who?
Most subscribers don't read all their list mail anyway, and this
blocking info has little or no value or interest to the list-owner.
Thomas Gramstad
thomas@ifi.uio.no
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 13:31:09 2002
Received: from yertle.kciLink.com (yertle.kcilink.com [216.194.193.105])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5618D1959D8
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yertle.kciLink.com (Postfix, from userid 100)
id 974E721792; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:26:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vivek Khera
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15801.43275.513841.724829@yertle.kciLink.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:26:51 -0400
To: list-managers
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025100629.04589640@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
References: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025091131.04809420@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
<5.0.0.25.2.20021025100629.04589640@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 8) "Honest Recruiter" XEmacs Lucid
X-Archive-Number: 200210/11
X-Sequence-Number: 906
>>>>> "JD" == JC Dill writes:
JD> Does anyone know if AOL allows whitelisting AND blacklisting, and if the
JD> whitelist takes precedence? IOW, if she whitelists the list address, will
JD> it accept list email while bouncing private email from the same sender?
I find it worth $5/month to keep an AOL account just to check out
their strange way of doing things.
In my mail preferences, I see basically you either allow all, deny
all, whitelist and block rest, or blacklist and allow rest (actually,
you can allow just @aol.com and block the rest, too).
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 14:28:08 2002
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.176.124.156])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC05195F71
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118])
by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07533501A
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:28:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-America-Has-Resolve: yes
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now!
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021025143825.39fb3ea0@199.74.151.1>
X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:57:42 -0400
To: "list-managers"
From: Nick Simicich
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025091131.04809420@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5F04703F; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archive-Number: 200210/12
X-Sequence-Number: 907
At 09:17 AM 2002-10-25 -0700, JC Dill wrote:
>I just received the following bounce/error message from AOL:
>
> >from: Mail Delivery Subsystem
> >Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:23:25 EDT
> >To:
> >Subject: Mail Delivery Problem
> >
> >Your mail to the following recipients could not be delivered because they
> >are not accepting mail from xxxxxxx@yahoo.com:
> > userxxxxxx
>
>userxxxxxx@aol.com and xxxxxxx@yahoo.com are both subscribed to this
>list. AOL gives users the ability to block email from specified addresses
>(blacklist/blocklist).
>
>Is it correct for AOL to send an error message like this to the list-owner
>address when the sender is on the recipient's blocklist?
No. The sender is not xxxxxxx@yahoo.com, the sender is the list. The
bounce is sent to the list because that is the sender. The mail is not
from xxxxxxx@yahoo.com, the mail is from your list. AOL figured that out
for the purpose of sending the bounce to the right place. They should also
understand that for the purpose of filtering the mail.
At the very least, AOL's message is wrong, it should be something on the
order of "composed by" as opposed to "from". They have no other place to
send the bounce, it would never be correct for them to send it to Mr.
xxxxxxx who gets mail at yahoo.
>I can see this developing into a real problem if you get a bunch of people
>who decide to killfile someone they don't like and the list manager gets
>notices from each one, each time a post is blocked.
Does not bother me at all. Mj2 allows me to process messages as well as to
send a separate probe message before unsubscribing someone. I find that
the "user does not exist" sort of message from AOL is trustworthy, so I do
not send a probe message for that one, but for the typical "who knows"
message, I send a probe (automatically) when I get a couple of bounce
messages, and I only unsub someone when the probe bounces.
I guess that I have a philosophy about bounces that is more permissive than
some because of the ability of mj2 (and many other MLMs) to automatically
handle bounces, use verp to determine exactly which addresses are bouncing,
and so forth. Because of this, frankly, I almost never look at an actual
bounce. As a point, I would never have seen this situation, because it
would not have even been on my radar screen, unless someone complained
because xxxxxxx had sent enough posts through to trigger probes to those
users who had screened him, and they had then complained about the probes.
--
Unsubscribing from a mailing list you subscribed to is a basic IQ
test for Internet users.
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 15:07:46 2002
Received: from pat.uio.no (pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B4F195ADA
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stjorn.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.65.55])
by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7)
id 185CcH-0000ev-00; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 00:07:41 +0200
Received: from localhost (thomas@localhost) by stjorn.ifi.uio.no ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 00:07:40 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 00:07:40 +0200 (MEST)
From: Thomas Gramstad
Reply-To: Thomas Gramstad
To: Nick Simicich
Cc: list-managers
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021025143825.39fb3ea0@199.74.151.1>
Message-ID:
X-Contact-Me-Info: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/
X-My-Lists: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/lists/
X-Best-Listserver: Majordomo 2 - http://csf.colorado.edu/mj/
X-Post-Objectivism: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/articles.html
X-Amazons-Ring: http://H.webring.com/hub?ring=amazonsinternati
X-Grrl: I love Janice
X-For-Media: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/pix/
X-Bli-Med-I-EFN: http://www.efn.no/
X-Boktips: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/lister/amasoner-bok.html
X-ena: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/lister/xena.html
X-en-Buddhism: Clap one hand now!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/13
X-Sequence-Number: 908
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Nick Simicich wrote:
> No. The sender is not xxxxxxx@yahoo.com, the sender is the list.
> The bounce is sent to the list because that is the sender. The mail
> is not from xxxxxxx@yahoo.com, the mail is from your list. AOL
> figured that out for the purpose of sending the bounce to the right
> place. They should also understand that for the purpose of
> filtering the mail.
>
> At the very least, AOL's message is wrong, it should be something on
> the order of "composed by" as opposed to "from". They have no other
> place to send the bounce, it would never be correct for them to send
> it to Mr. xxxxxxx who gets mail at yahoo.
Then why send filter-bounces at all? Why can't the filtering or
user-initiated blocking happen quietly?
Thomas Gramstad
thomas@ifi.uio.no
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 18:34:00 2002
Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0D9195A35
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.8] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id UAA12398 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:33:56 -0500 (CDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:32:31 -0500
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
From: Adam Bailey
To: list-managers
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <20021026012005.F2C96196205@mycroft.greatcircle.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Archive-Number: 200210/14
X-Sequence-Number: 909
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:26:51 -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>>>>>> "JD" == JC Dill writes:
>
> JD> Does anyone know if AOL allows whitelisting AND blacklisting, and if the
> JD> whitelist takes precedence? IOW, if she whitelists the list address, will
> JD> it accept list email while bouncing private email from the same sender?
>
> I find it worth $5/month to keep an AOL account just to check out
> their strange way of doing things.
>
> In my mail preferences, I see basically you either allow all, deny
> all, whitelist and block rest, or blacklist and allow rest (actually,
> you can allow just @aol.com and block the rest, too).
AOL's Mail Controls are explained in detail, with screen shot, at
.
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 19:46:15 2002
Received: from thunderer.cnchost.com (thunderer.concentric.net [207.155.252.72])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62EA2195A11
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 19:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (adsl-208-201-244-240.sonic.net [208.201.244.240])
by thunderer.cnchost.com
id WAA04234; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 22:46:11 -0400 (EDT)
[ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14]
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025194032.03cceeb0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 19:48:09 -0700
To: list-managers
From: JC Dill
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To:
References: <20021026012005.F2C96196205@mycroft.greatcircle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Archive-Number: 200210/15
X-Sequence-Number: 910
On 06:32 PM 10/25/02, Adam Bailey wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:26:51 -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "JD" == JC Dill writes:
>>
>> JD> Does anyone know if AOL allows whitelisting AND blacklisting, and
if the
>> JD> whitelist takes precedence? IOW, if she whitelists the list address,
>will
>> JD> it accept list email while bouncing private email from the same sender?
>>
>> I find it worth $5/month to keep an AOL account just to check out
>> their strange way of doing things.
>>
>> In my mail preferences, I see basically you either allow all, deny
>> all, whitelist and block rest, or blacklist and allow rest (actually,
>> you can allow just @aol.com and block the rest, too).
>
>AOL's Mail Controls are explained in detail, with screen shot, at
>.
Thanks Adam!
BTW, is anyone else getting obscene private replies to their posts to this
list? I've received 2 content free replies from the same individual, the
second with an obscene subject line. I'm trying to determine if this is
someone who is disgruntled with this list and taking it out on everyone who
posts, or if have I been singled out for this behavior.
jc
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 20:27:54 2002
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9E81959E1
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9Q3Rjnp013636;
Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Beartooth
Reply-To: KHLsv
To: JC Dill
Cc: list-managers
Subject: Nutcase (was Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's)
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025194032.03cceeb0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/16
X-Sequence-Number: 911
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, JC Dill wrote:
> BTW, is anyone else getting obscene private replies to their
> posts to this list? I've received 2 content free replies from
> the same individual, the second with an obscene subject line.
> I'm trying to determine if this is someone who is disgruntled
> with this list and taking it out on everyone who posts, or if
> have I been singled out for this behavior.
Not by successful follow-up posts, obviously, since at
least one of us (myself) has definitely not seen them; but I'm also
the opposite of expert on the way the list is run ...
And I don't know enough about you to guess whether some
random nut is even less likely to find you, or the list. Got any
acquaintances with a really contemptible absence of good sense
*and* sense of humor, as far as you know? (Not that any of us lack
acquaintences, if they can be called that, whom we know not of!)
Maybe there's an electronic equivalent of a white van with
an Alabama fingerprint; if there is, putting them here will surely
prove to be much like strutting those in front of the FBI
building'd've been ...
--
RR 'Beartooth' Neuswanger karhunhammas (at) lserv.com
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 20:49:50 2002
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786DB195A3A
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9Q3nlnp016022;
Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:49:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:49:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Beartooth
Reply-To: KHLsv
To: JC Dill
Cc: list-managers
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20021025194032.03cceeb0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/17
X-Sequence-Number: 912
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, JC Dill wrote:
> On 06:32 PM 10/25/02, Adam Bailey wrote:
> >AOL's Mail Controls are explained in detail, with screen shot, at
> >.
>
> Thanks Adam!
Ditto! Closer to aol than anything I'd yet seen, and of
great clinical interest ....
--
RR 'Beartooth' Neuswanger
[T]he delight of Aule was in the deed of making, and in
the thing made, and not in possession nor in himself, wherefore
he became a maker and a teacher, and none have called him lord.
-- JRR Tolkien
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Oct 25 23:57:47 2002
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.176.124.156])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E938119603D
for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118])
by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5537C351D9
for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 02:57:43 -0400 (EDT)
X-America-Has-Resolve: yes
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now!
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021026021227.05934cf8@199.74.151.1>
X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 02:23:12 -0400
To: list-managers
From: Nick Simicich
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To:
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021025143825.39fb3ea0@199.74.151.1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-23A1D59; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archive-Number: 200210/18
X-Sequence-Number: 913
At 12:07 AM 2002-10-26 +0200, Thomas Gramstad wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Nick Simicich wrote:
> > At the very least, AOL's message is wrong, it should be something on
> > the order of "composed by" as opposed to "from". They have no other
> > place to send the bounce, it would never be correct for them to send
> > it to Mr. xxxxxxx who gets mail at yahoo.
>
>Then why send filter-bounces at all? Why can't the filtering or
>user-initiated blocking happen quietly?
If it were a privately composed piece of mail that you sent to someone, you
might well want to know whether or not it actually got through. It is right
to return a bounce. The real issue is whether it is right to bounce mailing
list mail.
I suggest that it is not 100% possible to determine that the mail was sent
by a mailing list vs. a individual who has forwarded it to you using
certain MUA's "bounce" protocols.
The more I consider this, the more I feel that it is not right for AOL to
filter this mail at all based on the fact that the user instructed AOL to
block mail from an individual, but then mail came from a mailing list was
blocked instead. I think that this is a bug and someone who cares and who
has an AOL account should report this.
If you are bouncing based on the content of a header, that is one thing.
But that is not what was suggested. If you are bouncing because the mail
came from "X" then you have done the wrong thing.
--
"Forgive him, for he believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of
nature!"
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sat Oct 26 05:42:05 2002
Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055F6195A76
for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 05:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 24-205-154-98.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([24.205.154.98] helo=lehel.goldmark.private)
by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 185QGS-0003vy-00
for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 05:42:04 -0700
Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51])
by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
id 185QGS-00044P-00
for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 05:42:04 -0700
Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost)
by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10)
id H4L9Y3-00011U-00
for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 05:42:03 -0700
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 05:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeffrey Goldberg
X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private
Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg
To: list-managers
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021026021227.05934cf8@199.74.151.1>
Message-ID:
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021025143825.39fb3ea0@199.74.151.1>
<5.1.0.14.2.20021026021227.05934cf8@199.74.151.1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/19
X-Sequence-Number: 914
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Nick Simicich wrote:
> >Then why send filter-bounces at all? Why can't the filtering or
> >user-initiated blocking happen quietly?
>
> If it were a privately composed piece of mail that you sent to someone, you
> might well want to know whether or not it actually got through. It is right
> to return a bounce.
I think the question is whether this should be considered a bounce (and so
go to the envelope sender) or be considered an autoresponse (and so go to
the header reply-to or header from).
> The real issue is whether it is right to bounce mailing
> list mail.
As you say below, it is very hard to distinguish. I have a rant about
what autoresponders should and shouldn't do. But it isn't clear that this
is should be an autoresponder.
> The more I consider this, the more I feel that it is not right for AOL to
> filter this mail at all based on the fact that the user instructed AOL to
> block mail from an individual, but then mail came from a mailing list was
> blocked instead. I think that this is a bug and someone who cares and who
> has an AOL account should report this.
I'm coming to agree with you (and am revising my initial stance based on
what you and others have written). This really is an automated user end
mail filtering. It shouldn't really be generating bounces.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sat Oct 26 10:00:30 2002
Received: from illustrious.cnchost.com (illustrious.concentric.net [207.155.252.7])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179901959E8
for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (adsl-208-201-244-240.sonic.net [208.201.244.240])
by illustrious.cnchost.com
id NAA15475; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:00:28 -0400 (EDT)
[ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14]
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20021026094508.02ed8da0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:49:24 -0700
To: list-managers
From: JC Dill
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To:
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021026021227.05934cf8@199.74.151.1>
<5.1.0.14.2.20021025143825.39fb3ea0@199.74.151.1>
<5.1.0.14.2.20021026021227.05934cf8@199.74.151.1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Archive-Number: 200210/20
X-Sequence-Number: 915
On 05:42 AM 10/26/02, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>I'm coming to agree with you (and am revising my initial stance based on
>what you and others have written). This really is an automated user end
>mail filtering. It shouldn't really be generating bounces.
What's really odd about this is that the AOL filters are infamous for
swallowing email without a trace. Often AOL users who use whitelists bid
on something on eBay and then can't get email from the seller because the
seller isn't on the whitelist (and a well known work-around is to send
email thru eBay's "contact a user" interface, because then the email comes
thru eBay, which may be whitelisted). The seller doesn't get *any*
response when sending email to winners with this type of filter.
So why am I getting bounce messages to the list manager email address? I
wonder if AOL has changed how they process "filtered" messages...
jc
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sat Oct 26 16:25:04 2002
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.176.124.156])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9891959C8
for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118])
by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974C1351DE
for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:25:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-America-Has-Resolve: yes
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now!
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021026185928.047eb888@199.74.151.1>
X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:24:16 -0400
To: list-managers
From: Nick Simicich
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To:
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021026021227.05934cf8@199.74.151.1>
<5.1.0.14.2.20021025143825.39fb3ea0@199.74.151.1>
<5.1.0.14.2.20021026021227.05934cf8@199.74.151.1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-33EE1E64; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archive-Number: 200210/21
X-Sequence-Number: 916
At 05:42 AM 2002-10-26 -0700, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Nick Simicich wrote:
>
> > >Then why send filter-bounces at all? Why can't the filtering or
> > >user-initiated blocking happen quietly?
> >
> > If it were a privately composed piece of mail that you sent to someone, you
> > might well want to know whether or not it actually got through. It is right
> > to return a bounce.
>
>I think the question is whether this should be considered a bounce (and so
>go to the envelope sender) or be considered an autoresponse (and so go to
>the header reply-to or header from).
It is never right to send any autoresponse regarding the message delivery
status to anything other than the RFC821 sender (or the contents of the
Sender: header, which should be specified if the RFC821 sender does not
match the From: line). No doubt this is heresy, but, for example, vacation
responses should always go to the sender and not to any of the other
entities mentioned in the RFC822 headers. The only time that the RFC822
headers should be used for generating responses is when there is human
interaction. This is especially true for responses generated by MTAs.
RFC822 4.4.4 attempts to discuss this, and, to some extent, my feeling is
that Return-Path has supplanted sender for this usage, and when looking at
how smtp mail is delivered, the RFC821 MAIL FROM: header is moved into the
sender (or Return-Path) when the mail is "gatewayed" from a RFC821 context
to an RFC822 context, that is, when it is delivered. At the very least,
any notification of the status of the message should be sent to the
sender/Mail From: header and only responses to the message should use the
RFC822 From: or Reply-to: headers.
This is clearly a notification of non-delivery, and not a response.
> > The real issue is whether it is right to bounce mailing
> > list mail.
>
>As you say below, it is very hard to distinguish. I have a rant about
>what autoresponders should and shouldn't do. But it isn't clear that this
>is should be an autoresponder.
Again, I have no idea where you got the idea that autoresponders that are
reporting delivery status should send to anything other than the RFC821
header or, as some MTA/MUA combinations (depending on which side of the
line you put a delivery agent) the Return-Path: header. If they never did
anything other than that, then vacation programs, for example, would never
bother anyone other than the list (they would never bother people who
composed mail and sent it to the list).
For most cases, the addresses in the RFC821 and 822 headers should be the
same. For those cases where they are not, such as mailing list mail, I
can't think of one where it is not right to use the 821 headers.
> > The more I consider this, the more I feel that it is not right for AOL to
> > filter this mail at all based on the fact that the user instructed AOL to
> > block mail from an individual, but then mail came from a mailing list was
> > blocked instead. I think that this is a bug and someone who cares and who
> > has an AOL account should report this.
>
>I'm coming to agree with you (and am revising my initial stance based on
>what you and others have written). This really is an automated user end
>mail filtering. It shouldn't really be generating bounces.
>
>-j
>
>--
>Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
>Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
--
Take The Boulder Pledge Today
"Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the
result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters,
petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others.
This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." - Roger
Ebert -- nor will I vote for any candidate who solicits my vote via e-mail.
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Oct 27 07:52:33 2002
Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE93195A9A
for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 07:52:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 24-205-154-98.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([24.205.154.98] helo=lehel.goldmark.private)
by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 185piG-0003w4-00; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 07:52:28 -0800
Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51])
by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
id 185piG-0006Ax-00; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 07:52:28 -0800
Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost)
by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10)
id H4NDFF-000AAE-00; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 07:52:27 -0800
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 07:52:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeffrey Goldberg
X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private
Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg
To: Nick Simicich
Cc: list-managers
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021026185928.047eb888@199.74.151.1>
Message-ID:
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021026021227.05934cf8@199.74.151.1>
<5.1.0.14.2.20021025143825.39fb3ea0@199.74.151.1>
<5.1.0.14.2.20021026021227.05934cf8@199.74.151.1>
<5.1.0.14.2.20021026185928.047eb888@199.74.151.1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/22
X-Sequence-Number: 917
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Nick Simicich wrote:
> At 05:42 AM 2002-10-26 -0700, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> >I think the question is whether this should be considered a bounce (and so
> >go to the envelope sender) or be considered an autoresponse (and so go to
> >the header reply-to or header from).
>
> It is never right to send any autoresponse regarding the message
> delivery status to anything other than the RFC821 sender [...] RFC822
> 4.4.4 attempts to discuss this,
Yikes! I know this (or should know this). I discuss that in my "bad
bounce" rant
http://www.goldmark.org/email/badbounce.html
I think I need to initiate a self-imposed moritorium on me posting before
sufficient caffine. (But that rule would rule out this post, and maybe it
should.)
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Oct 27 08:39:11 2002
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D6B195AA5
for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 08:39:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9RGd6np017769;
Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:39:06 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:39:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Beartooth
Reply-To: KHLsv
To: Jeffrey Goldberg
Cc: list-managers
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/23
X-Sequence-Number: 918
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> I think I need to initiate a self-imposed moritorium on me
> posting before sufficient caffine. (But that rule would rule out
> this post, and maybe it should.)
No, don't, any of you who carry this list. It's good for
those of us who lurk (or mostly lurk) to see role models being
human, goofing, and remaining undevastated.
And if we could have a pool, my bet on the number of
replies I get, under the Net (never to the list!), thanking me for
saying so, would be three to five.
--
RR 'Beartooth' Neuswanger karhunhammas (at) lserv.com
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Oct 27 09:32:28 2002
Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A62195F3F
for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 09:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpe-66-87-152-33.il.sprintbbd.net ([66.87.152.33] helo=ord351473)
by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 185rFk-0007cX-00
for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 09:31:08 -0800
Message-ID: <002401c27dde$99ef3e40$21985742@ord351473>
From: "David W. Tamkin"
To: "list-managers"
References:
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's controls
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:30:46 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Archive-Number: 200210/24
X-Sequence-Number: 919
Beartooth wrote,
| And if we could have a pool, my bet on the number of
| replies I get, under the Net (never to the list!), thanking me for
| saying so, would be three to five.
Tooth, you didn't consider that we changed the clocks back today in North
America and many on this list have an extra hour to kill.
Seriously, my take on it is that the RFC(2)821 return address is proper for
reactions to receipt, while the RFC(2)822 reply address is proper for
responses to content.
It is a difficult situation. The bounce has to go to the list administrator,
the refuser can't redesign the bounce to go the poster and has no right anyway
telling the poster not to post, the list administrator probably has no cause
to silence or boot the poster, and the list administrator cannot be held
responsible for implementing personal feuds and keeping the disliked poster's
articles from being sent to the refuser. (What if the refuser wanted to
switch to digest -- should [s]he get a special edition without the dislikee's
posts? What if the refuser visited the list archives and got offended that
the dislikee's posts are visible there?)
The only solution I see is for the list administrator to tell the refuser to
get a webmail account or such elsewhere, off AOL, where the filtering
capabilities allow silently trashing posts from any other members the person
dislikes, and to resubscribe then; in the meanwhile, the refuser's Mail
Controls settings are toxic, and his/her AOL address -- but not him/her as a
person -- cannot be on the list. There have been a handful of times in my own
history of running lists that I've asked a subscriber to find email service
elsewhere: (s)he was welcome on the list but his/her site's MTA configuration
or policies were not.
Of course, the refuser won't budge, so the administrator has to apply whatever
the standard policy: N bounces and a subscriber's address is deemed invalid
and the subscription is closed.
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Oct 27 10:45:27 2002
Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B086195F8D
for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:45:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186])
by plaidworks.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9RIjOhh008388;
Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:45:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:45:23 -0800
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546)
Cc: Jeffrey Goldberg ,
list-managers
To: KHLsv
From: Chuq Von Rospach
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id: <40608213-E9DC-11D6-B384-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546)
X-Archive-Number: 200210/25
X-Sequence-Number: 920
On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 08:39 AM, Beartooth wrote:
> No, don't, any of you who carry this list. It's good for
> those of us who lurk (or mostly lurk) to see role models being
> human, goofing, and remaining undevastated.
>
Ah, thanks! there is a reason for my existence, then.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
No! No! Dead girl, OFF the table! -- Shrek
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Oct 27 12:56:39 2002
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.176.124.156])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE4B195A02
for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:56:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118])
by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C50350EE
for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 15:56:36 -0500 (EST)
X-America-Has-Resolve: yes
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now!
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021027153405.12dff638@199.74.151.1>
X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 15:37:36 -0500
To: list-managers
From: Nick Simicich
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-33EE1E64; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archive-Number: 200210/26
X-Sequence-Number: 921
At 11:39 AM 2002-10-27 -0500, Beartooth wrote:
> And if we could have a pool, my bet on the number of
>replies I get, under the Net (never to the list!), thanking me for
>saying so, would be three to five.
Don't forget the two people who will write you with different degrees of
civility trying to figure out how to get off the list.
--
Unsubscribing from a mailing list you subscribed to is a basic IQ
test for Internet users.
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Oct 27 13:17:40 2002
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C630195A75
for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 13:17:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9RLHcnp015134;
Sun, 27 Oct 2002 16:17:38 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 16:17:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Beartooth
Reply-To: KHLsv
To: Nick Simicich
Cc: list-managers
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021027153405.12dff638@199.74.151.1>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/27
X-Sequence-Number: 922
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Nick Simicich wrote:
> Don't forget the two people who will write you with different
> degrees of civility trying to figure out how to get off the list.
Both must still be sleeping off the delight of getting off
the achronic abomination and getting back onto God's Time --
haven't peeped yet.
One of the minor pleasures of this list, saving your
presence, is the signal to noise ratio : most subscribers do know
what a list is ....
--
RR 'Beartooth' Neuswanger
[T]he delight of Aule was in the deed of making, and in
the thing made, and not in possession nor in himself, wherefore
he became a maker and a teacher, and none have called him lord.
-- JRR Tolkien
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Oct 27 19:19:25 2002
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.176.124.156])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3830A195A64
for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 19:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118])
by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B7F3501A
for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 22:19:20 -0500 (EST)
X-America-Has-Resolve: yes
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now!
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021027174601.14776720@parrot-int.squawk.com>
X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 18:53:42 -0500
To: list-managers
From: Nick Simicich
Subject: Complexity of list MLM robot messages....
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-33EE1E64; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archive-Number: 200210/28
X-Sequence-Number: 923
I just helped someone get off of this list.
Names are changed to protect the innocent:
>Nick,
>
>I am sending you this message because your latest post to "list-managers"
>shows that you are maybe the best person to ask.
>
>I have been trying for months to get myself removed from list-managers. I
>tried following the exact procedure that was in the welcome message that I
>got when I joined. It did not work. I tried every possible variation on this
>procedure that I can think of. I tried sending messages directly to the list
>asking for help. I got no reply. Can you figure out how I can unsubscribe
>from this list or who I can request it from?!
>
>Thanks,
[elided]
>
>PS. Below is the welcome message that I received when I joined.
>
>
>
>
>
>Welcome to the list-managers mailing list!
>Your password at Majordomo@GreatCircle.COM is
>aabbCC
>
>To leave this mailing list, send the following command in the body
>of a message to Majordomo@GreatCircle.COM:
>
>approve aabbCC unsubscribe list-managers "Joe Nobody"
>JoeNobody@hotmail.com
Well, I told him that I was not the right person to ask, and after
significant hesitation, I suggested that he send:
unsubscribe list-managers
to majordomo@greatcircle.com
That worked. Frankly, if he tried every variation he could think of and
did not try "unsubscribe list-managers", well, maybe he does not have much
imagination? I was actually worried about having made that suggestion -
because, essentially, I felt like I was calling him a liar.
We corresponded after he got off of the list. The actual fact was that he
sent
approve aabbCC unsubscribe list-managers "Joe Nobody"
to the majordomo address. It apparently never occurred to him to tack on
the second line or to send variations that included his address.
So, I said all that, to say this:
What have people found regarding the right way to format this sort of
message? The original majordomo messages would always talk about tacking
messages together with backslashes to make up for the effects of word
wrapping. That seemed to confuse a lot of people. Are you better off
offering a simple alternative? Thorough or simple?
There are two things that seem to be hard for the average
user: Subscribing and unsubscribing. It is not just the confirmation
issue, it is the whole mess.
I personally found that my manual help requests went way down when I
offered a "do it all link" in my majordomo confirmations. The system I am
using dropped that --- you now click and then push a button. Not too bad,
but you still have to offer people an e-mail response, and simply being
offered an alternative confuses people.
(I remember a friend who had a two year old. She said that they could
answer a question like, "Do you want hamburgers or hot dogs for dinner?"
but not "What do you want for dinner?" since contemplating the universe of
possibilities confused them. This seems to indicate that the average user
is not as smart as her two year olds.)
Is there a good way to format this sort of message? Something that makes
it possible for users to understand it and do the right thing?
Why did this user have so much trouble with this message, when all they had
to do was to send in a simple unsubscribe message?
--
Take The Boulder Pledge Today
"Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the
result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters,
petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others.
This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." - Roger
Ebert -- nor will I vote for any candidate who solicits my vote via e-mail.
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Oct 27 19:19:26 2002
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.176.124.156])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BFD195AA1
for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 19:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118])
by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2ED93507D
for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 22:19:21 -0500 (EST)
X-America-Has-Resolve: yes
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now!
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021027220157.147b3380@199.74.151.1>
X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 22:03:35 -0500
To: list-managers
From: Nick Simicich
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
In-Reply-To: <40608213-E9DC-11D6-B384-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-33EE1E64; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archive-Number: 200210/29
X-Sequence-Number: 924
At 10:45 AM 2002-10-27 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 08:39 AM, Beartooth wrote:
>> No, don't, any of you who carry this list. It's good for
>>those of us who lurk (or mostly lurk) to see role models being
>>human, goofing, and remaining undevastated.
>Ah, thanks! there is a reason for my existence, then.
As opposed to some of us who are not role models, but who are, none the
less, devastated. :-)
--
Take The Boulder Pledge Today
"Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the
result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters,
petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others.
This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." - Roger
Ebert -- nor will I vote for any candidate who solicits my vote via e-mail.
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Oct 28 06:34:59 2002
Received: from web11403.mail.yahoo.com (web11403.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.131.233])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4CCBE195FB2
for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 06:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20021028143452.63666.qmail@web11403.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [202.144.91.253] by web11403.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 06:34:52 PST
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 06:34:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Padmanabhan Manavazhi
Subject: Evaluation of list servers
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Archive-Number: 200210/30
X-Sequence-Number: 925
Hi All,
We are a small outfit at present having a assignment
for setting up a list server and we are in the process
of evaluating couple of them
It will be nice if I can get advice to what are the
parameters to look for or any pointers will be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks
Balan
Unique Soft
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Oct 28 13:30:45 2002
Received: from jerusalem.christianitytoday.com (jerusalem.christianitytoday.com [12.158.13.148])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84C31963B9
for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:30:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rt ([12.24.216.130])
by christianitytoday.com ([12.158.13.148])
with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v6.0.7.R)
for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:32:29 -0600
From: "Tatum, Rich"
To: "list-managers"
Subject: Re: AOL bounce message due to an AOL user's
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:29:42 -0600
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To:
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-MDRemoteIP: 12.24.216.130
X-Return-Path: rich@ChristianityToday.com
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
X-Archive-Number: 200210/31
X-Sequence-Number: 926
JC Dill asked:
< Does anyone know if AOL allows whitelisting AND
blacklisting, and if the whitelist takes precedence? >
We deliver broadcast newsletters to > 100,000 AOL addresses every
week. This is my (unofficial) understanding:
AOL uses a two-tier SMTP system. The first tier accepts all
incoming email. All of it. (Generating no immediate bounce-back
notices for failed or rejected mail.) These first-tier servers
then pass the incoming messages to the next layer of servers for
processing against a global AOL whitelist, a global AOL
blacklist, a global AOL "known bulk emailer" list, and the
universe of AOL recipients.
Of course, bad addresses get bounced. Also, full inboxes get
bounced. Each recipient's mail controls also apply: Each
recipient can optionally define a whitelist, a blacklist, and a
"known sender" list. (The known senders get identified with
different icons than the suspiciously unknown senders.)
In the case of bulk email, if the sender is on AOL's list of bulk
senders that operate according to AOL mail sending rules, then
these approved bulk email senders get a friendly icon that looks
like a brown parcel. Getting on the list of approved bulk email
senders requires becoming an AOL content partner.
If you want to test an AOL address, you can do so with your own
personal AOL account. This is what I do:
1) Take a list of 100 or so AOL email addresses and paste them
into your AOL message CC window, surrounded by parentheses (the
parenthesis in AOL indicates a BCC recipient). In the TO window,
address your message to "0" (the numeral zero). The numeral zero
will never be a valid AOL userid. Then, send your message.
The way AOL currently works, if even one of your recipients is
false you will get a dialog box back that contains the userids of
all the members you sent to which don't exist. Eliminate those
from your list and you've just purged all the bad addresses.
If you do this to a large number of users or too frequently
you'll risk getting your AOL account shut down because the system
will assume you are a spammer. So proceed at your own risk.
Regards,
Rich.
--
Richard Tatum
Website manager for Christianity Today International
email: rich@christianitytoday.com
web: christianitytoday.com
aol im: richtatum
-Stephen L. Talbott
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Oct 30 10:07:13 2002
Received: from jerusalem.christianitytoday.com (jerusalem.christianitytoday.com [12.158.13.148])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A058195AB8
for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rt ([12.24.216.130])
by christianitytoday.com ([12.158.13.148])
with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v6.0.7.R)
for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:08:43 -0600
From: "Tatum, Rich"
To: "list-managers"
Subject: ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:05:55 -0600
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To:
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-MDRemoteIP: 12.24.216.130
X-Return-Path: rich@ChristianityToday.com
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
X-Archive-Number: 200210/32
X-Sequence-Number: 927
From: http://list-news.com/articles/02october/20021022.html
ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
October 22, 2002 - 11:00am CST
SAN FRANCISCO - ISPs incorrectly block 1 in 8 permission-based
messages as unwanted email, according to a company
specializing in getting permission email delivered....
[snip]
Regards,
Rich
--
Richard Tatum
Website manager for Christianity Today International
email: rich@christianitytoday.com
web: christianitytoday.com
aol im: richtatum
-Stephen L. Talbott
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Oct 31 00:48:11 2002
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.176.124.156])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3CF195A2B
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118])
by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000E63501C
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 03:48:07 -0500 (EST)
X-America-Has-Resolve: yes
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now!
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021031012901.029b4b08@199.74.151.1>
X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 02:14:39 -0500
To: "list-managers"
From: Nick Simicich
Subject: Re: ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
In-Reply-To:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-53602E74; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archive-Number: 200210/33
X-Sequence-Number: 928
At 12:05 PM 2002-10-30 -0600, Tatum, Rich wrote:
> From: http://list-news.com/articles/02october/20021022.html
>
> ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
> October 22, 2002 - 11:00am CST
>
> SAN FRANCISCO - ISPs incorrectly block 1 in 8 permission-based
> messages as unwanted email, according to a company
> specializing in getting permission email delivered....
Come on, did you read the article? This was mail that was formatted to be
blocked, using huge numbers of spam keywords and the like, so that they
could write this article which was nothing more than an advertisement for
their expert service to try to make sure that their spam does not get
clipped by spamassassin. Besides, "permission based" is a euphemism in the
world that that article came from for, "We have weblogs that show where
their email address was entered onto a web form." They won't show you
those logs, because if they have them, they probably generated themselves
with a script driven off of a millions CD and they need time to randomize
the ip addresses. The more honest ones drive the script through the web
server so that they are real web server logs.
I seriously doubt that one in eight of the mails that come through the sort
of mailing lists that most of us run here are being blocked by spam
blockers, unless one in eight of ordinary mails are blocked.
--
Take The Boulder Pledge Today
"Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the
result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters,
petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others.
This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." - Roger
Ebert -- nor will I vote for any candidate who solicits my vote via e-mail.
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Oct 31 03:58:36 2002
Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56021959D7
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 03:57:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from big-vaio.server.com ([24.128.68.75]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
id <20021031115724.IQNM24555.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@big-vaio.server.com>
for ;
Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:57:24 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20021031063759.01d2e6e0@mail.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: brunnock@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 06:57:14 -0500
To: "list-managers"
From: Sean Brunnock
Subject: Re: ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021031012901.029b4b08@199.74.151.1>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Archive-Number: 200210/34
X-Sequence-Number: 929
At 02:14 AM 10/31/02, Nick Simicich wrote:
>I seriously doubt that one in eight of the mails that come through the sort of mailing lists that most of us run here are being blocked by spam blockers, unless one in eight of ordinary mails are blocked.
Many of our newsletters are blocked by SpamAssassin. For example,
a french soccer newsletter was bounced today because SpamAssassin
determined that it contained porn. You can see the newsletter here-
http://server.com/WebApps/mail-list-archive.cgi?id=12603;date=2002-10-30 .
I don't think that SpamAssassin is sophisticated enough to determine
the content of a message written in a foreign language.
People love and praise SpamAssassin, but I think it just arbitrarily blocks
all bulk mail.
For the record, I use the BrightMail service provided by Earthlink and it's
been doing a great job for me. It blocks most of my spam but doesn't block
any of my newsletters.
Sean Brunnock
http://server.com
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Oct 31 04:55:29 2002
Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D6C1959D7
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 04:55:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from big-vaio.server.com ([24.128.68.75]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
id <20021031125527.JOLR24555.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@big-vaio.server.com>
for ;
Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:55:27 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20021031074035.01d34430@mail.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: brunnock@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:55:17 -0500
To: "list-managers"
From: Sean Brunnock
Subject: Re: ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
In-Reply-To: <00ed01c280d8$faa8c150$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>
References:
<5.0.2.1.2.20021031063759.01d2e6e0@mail.earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Archive-Number: 200210/35
X-Sequence-Number: 930
At 07:28 AM 10/31/02, Peter Galbavy wrote:
>This is the old 'guns are evil' argument all over again.
I pointed out that I like BrightMail so no one would
accuse me of disparaging spam blockers in general.
So much for that idea.
SpamAssassin has arbitrary rules for determining if an
email message is spam. I think the fact that SpamAssassin
tagged a french soccer newsletter as porn would indicate
that.
Sean Brunnock
http://server.com
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Oct 31 06:11:26 2002
Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B5D195FD5
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 06:11:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500)
id DB6BE1BF34D; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:11:24 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15809.14860.724487.124735@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:11:24 -0500
To: "list-managers"
Subject: Re: ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
References: <5.0.2.1.2.20021031063759.01d2e6e0@mail.earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 9) "Informed Management" XEmacs Lucid
From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw)
X-Attribution: BAW
X-Oblique-Strategy: Put everything in one place
X-Url: http://barry.wooz.org
X-Archive-Number: 200210/36
X-Sequence-Number: 931
>>>>> "SB" == Sean Brunnock writes:
SB> . I don't think that SpamAssassin is sophisticated enough to
SB> determine the content of a message written in a foreign
SB> language.
SB> People love and praise SpamAssassin, but I think it just
SB> arbitrarily blocks all bulk mail.
People who are interested in better spam blockers should check out the
spambayes project on SourceForge:
http://spambayes.sf.net/
This is a Bayesian classifier for detecting spam. When properly
trained (and that's the trick) it has extremely low false positive and
false negative rates.
-Barry
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Oct 31 06:44:38 2002
Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23335195A52
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 06:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fantasy (cosell.gva.net [65.164.103.253])
by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g9VEiWU31167
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:44:33 -0500
Message-Id: <200210311444.g9VEiWU31167@mail.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: "list-managers"
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:44:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
In-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.2.20021031074035.01d34430@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <00ed01c280d8$faa8c150$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.1(snapshot 20020108) (server02.rev.net)
X-Archived: msg.1036075472.uNxHY0@server02.rev.net
X-Archive-Number: 200210/37
X-Sequence-Number: 932
On 31 Oct 2002, at 7:55, Sean Brunnock wrote:
> SpamAssassin has arbitrary rules for determining if an
> email message is spam. I think the fact that SpamAssassin
> tagged a french soccer newsletter as porn would indicate
> that.
Indeed it does have somewhat arbitrary rules. SpamAssassin is basically
a probabilistic spam catcher. In my experiece, running just out of the
box [that is, with my not 'helping' it], it is getting about 1.5% false
positives [for me, that's two or three or four messages a day that end up
erroneously in my spam folder] and about 1% false negatives [oddly, it is
about the same: two or three or four spams a day that make it into my
real mailbox.
When I say "out of the box", that means that my *FIRST* rule in my
incoming mail filter is "if SA doesn't like it, put it in the spam
folder". Some mailing lists I'm on *DO* look like spam [e.g., there are
some that are advertiser sponsored, and so it is not surprising that SA
sees the 'ads' in the list-messages]; some of the spam I get is legit
[that is, announcements from companies that I *asked* to send me info
about product updates].
If I cared enough [and at the current FP rate, I don't] I'd put my
mailing list filing and other such filters *ahead* of the SA filter, and
that'd take my FP rate down very low [maybe a FP a week, if that much].
One of the guys at work does this [has the SA filter as the very last one
in his filter set] and he says that he can't remember the last FP he got.
On your original comment, you're probably right: I'd guess that SA's very
cleverly tuned filters and weights are very highly biased toward spam-in-
english and might well not be *NEARLY* so good with traffic [spam or not]
in other languages. That's fixable, of course -- you can go in and tune
the filters and tweak it up to understand French or German or whatever.
It's just a big Perl program and you could join the project to help out
and get SA to work better in other languages [if, indeed, it really does
not].
But IMO the right way to be using SA is *NOT* the way I"m using it [and
the way you apparently are, also], as your first-cut preliminary incoming
email filter, but rather as the *LAST*. That is, set up your filters so
that they deal with your mailing lists [most of us file mailing-list mail
into appropriate folders]; set up some filters to accept "spam you REALLY
DID request"; and the only when you get to the very _bottom_ of your list
of filters, when you're about to dump the incoming message into your
inbox, THEN do the SA filter. I can't say about how it'll work for folks
in France, but I know that for email-in-English it is really very good.
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:28:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9VFSGnp023308;
Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:28:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:28:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Beartooth
Reply-To: KHLsv
To: List Managers
Cc: ddave
Subject: Coincidental Possible Interest re spam (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/38
X-Sequence-Number: 933
This has happened to arrive, from a friend who's washing
his own hands of it by sending it to me, just as the list managers
are discussing spam and spamblockers; if not old hat, it may be
relevant.
Ddave, you may wish (if it's not old hat) to forward to
spam-L ...
--
RR 'Beartooth' Neuswanger
On the Internet, you can never tell who is a dog --
supposing you care -- but you can tell who has a mind.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:17:49 -0500
Maybe you'd like to do something with this. If you have some dirty
trick up your sleeve, that's fine by me. Just keep my info out of
it, please.
----------- Original Message ----------
>Return-Path:
>From: "Adam"
>Subject: Possible Interest
>Sender: "Adam"
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:56:16 -0500
>Reply-To: "Adam"
>
>Hello,
>I represent an acquisition firm that purchases the e-mail
>subscribers of websites that go defunct.
>
>We have access to several databases full of individuals
>who are double opt-in subscribers of newsletters and
>online offers. We sell off these user bases at 10-15cents.
>
>If interested, please let me know what category of
>interest you would like, and i'll let you know what
>currently available assets we have.
>
>Thank You
>Adam Weiss
>Independent Rep
>Market Share Group
>877-358-4200 ext. 937
>
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Oct 31 07:29:35 2002
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0212D1961EE
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9VFTVnp023427;
Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:29:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:29:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Beartooth
Reply-To: KHLsv
To: List Managers
Cc: ddave
Subject: another coincidence re spam : PPC accounts (fwd)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/39
X-Sequence-Number: 934
This is from the same friend as the Adam Weiss email.
--
RR 'Beartooth' Neuswanger
On the Internet, you can never tell who is a dog --
supposing you care -- but you can tell who has a mind.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:19:08 -0500
Ditto on this one.
joe
----------------
>Return-Path:
>Reply-To: "PPC"
>From: "PPC"
>Subject: PPC accounts
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 05:13:48 -0700
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>Importance: Normal
>
>We are an online research company, Top 10 Revenue Building. In a direct
>response to our member's requests we have compiled a list of the best
>website promotion companies. They have been thoroughly researched and offer
>services that can assist your business in time for the Christmas boom.
>
>We have helped thousands of businesses increase site traffic and bottom line
>revenues. To find a service that fits your needs and budget visit:
>
>http://rankings-4-u.cjb.net
>
>One of the companies even offers guaranteed results on sites like Yahoo,
>MSN, AOL, & Google.
>
>We will be keeping our members and guests informed as and when we update the
>list, but if you do not wish to be kept up-to-date then please send and
>email to mailto:swellhits_rem@hotmail.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject
>line.
>
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Oct 31 07:38:17 2002
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E901195FC5
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:38:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9VFcDnp024792;
Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:38:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:38:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Beartooth
Reply-To: KHLsv
To: "Barry A. Warsaw"
Cc: ddave ,
list-managers
Subject: Re: ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
In-Reply-To: <15809.14860.724487.124735@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Archive-Number: 200210/40
X-Sequence-Number: 935
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
>
> People who are interested in better spam blockers should check
> out the spambayes project on SourceForge:
>
> http://spambayes.sf.net/
>
> This is a Bayesian classifier for detecting spam. When properly
> trained (and that's the trick) it has extremely low false
> positive and false negative rates.
Steve Gibson and another guy are working on a variant of
Bayes which self-trains; more at grc.com, and especially on
spamnews at news.grc.com. I asked yesterday if/when it'll run on
linux; haven't checked yet.
And just to jump *way* out of my depth: I seem to recall
that the excellent AdSubtract is starting to get into anti-spam. If
that's feasible for it, it may also be feasible for Privoxy!
--
RR 'Beartooth' Neuswanger
On the Internet, you can never tell who is a dog --
supposing you care -- but you can tell who has a mind.
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Oct 31 10:01:32 2002
Received: from c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com (c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com [66.229.137.17])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1F0195AAE
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:01:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Spooler by c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com (Mercury/32 v3.32) ID MO000024;
31 Oct 02 10:01:30 -0800
Received: from spooler by bdsm-events.com (Mercury/32 v3.32); 31 Oct 02 10:01:18 -0800
Received: from tom (66.229.137.17) by c-66-229-137-17.we.client2.attbi.com (Mercury/32 v3.32) ID MG000023;
31 Oct 02 10:01:17 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20021031100111.009cb270@xmail.emediavillage.com>
X-Sender: tom@xmail.emediavillage.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:01:11 -0800
To: "list-managers"
From: Tom Keyser
Subject: Re: ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
In-Reply-To:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Archive-Number: 200210/41
X-Sequence-Number: 936
If your concerned about being blocked in general, go here and make sure the IP for you mailserver is not listed on any of these systems
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ip4r.ch?ip=
At 12:05 PM 10/30/02 -0600, Tatum, Rich wrote:
> From: http://list-news.com/articles/02october/20021022.html
>
> ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
> October 22, 2002 - 11:00am CST
>
> SAN FRANCISCO - ISPs incorrectly block 1 in 8 permission-based
> messages as unwanted email, according to a company
> specializing in getting permission email delivered....
>
> [snip]
>
>Regards,
>
>Rich
>--
>Richard Tatum
>Website manager for Christianity Today International
> email: rich@christianitytoday.com
> web: christianitytoday.com
> aol im: richtatum
>
> greatest enemy of the profound word> -Stephen L. Talbott
>
>
>
>
From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Oct 31 14:57:03 2002
Received: from penguin.postmodern.com (penguin.postmodern.com [216.240.39.2])
by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB82195A61
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:57:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postmodern.com (heathrow.postmodern.com [216.240.39.13])
by penguin.postmodern.com (8.11.1/8.11.1-mcb-20001119) with ESMTP id g9VMuR508288
for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:56:27 -0800
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:57:00 -0800
Subject: Re: ISPs Wrongly Block 1 in 8 Messages for Spam
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546)
From: "Michael C. Berch"
To: List Managers List
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <200210311444.g9VEiWU31167@mail.rev.net>
Message-Id: <10763DC7-ED24-11D6-960B-003065F94B0A@postmodern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546)
X-Archive-Number: 200210/42
X-Sequence-Number: 937
I am a user, tester, and occasional developer of SpamAssassin. There's
a lot of semi-accurate information about SA floating around the Net.
First of all, SA does not use a specific or "arbitrary" method of
identifying spam. Instead, it is an open platform that has a number of
different techniques plugged into it (and is extensible if you want to
write/add your own). SA techniques include:
* Internal pattern-matching on header & body parts
* Second-order (syntactic) analysis of patterns
* Analysis of embedded code (JavaScript, HTML, etc.)
* Automatic (feedback-based) whitelist and blacklist processing
* Use of external blocking lists like MAPS RBL, DUL, Osirus, Ordb.org,
SpamCop, RFCI, et al.
* Use of Vipul's Razor (known spam database)
Future plans include hooks for Bayesian Filtering.
The rulesets and scoring are repeatedly applied to a set of spam,
nonspam, and mixed message corpuses, using a genetic algorithm, to
determine scores. They are absolutely not "arbitrary", i.e., having a
person decide a particular word or phrase is "spam" or not.
The reason that SA works so well -- and I believe that it's the best at
what it does -- is that there is no one "best" way to identify spam.
There are multiple techniques with varying degrees of success, and if
you combine them all, and allow a self-correcting feedback technique
determine the score (likelihood of a message being spam) you get a very
high degree of success. Plus the ability of any user to override
various rules and scores to meet his/her individual needs.
--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@postmodern.com